Pages

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The much heralded hearings begin today by the U.S. Congress on the radicalization of American Muslims, much to the chagrin of Liberal apologists and inflammation of, well, radical Muslims. The irony lies in the pawns - ostensibly the concern of the Left - on the board being forced into the brutal path of the knights and bishops by the very people who pretend to care.

Chess has never been such a graphically violent contact sport.

Yet the Democrats, the media, and the Imams have all insinuated that ordinary Muslims will be so insulted by these hearings that - wait for it! - they may become radicalized. One of the reasons for the hearings is Chairman Peter King's disappointment in the lack of protests by "ordinary" American Muslims in the face of attacks waged in their name, and still we're being cautioned that to try to figure out why may cause more attacks. Forgive me for being confused by such an absurd message.

The World Trade Center attacks were carried out by radical Muslims. The Madrid subway bombings were perpetrated by Muslims. The London attacks, Muslims. The failed shoe-bomber aboard a flight, Richard Reid, a Muslim. The New York bound Christmas Day attempted underwear bomber was a Muslim, as was the foiled Times Square bomber. Yet the only Muslim member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, states that radicalization is not contained within "one group".

Ellison et al try to equate radical Islam with a rogue Liberal maniac who flies a small plane into the IRS building or a lone psychopath who shoots up a school. Someone even went so far in the equivocation as to claim that Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords in the name of atheism. One must wonder if anyone heard Loughner shout "God is nonexistent" moments before the shootings.

And then we have the gold standard for comparisons and the claims that "all groups have radicals", Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma federal building because he was angry at the government's handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge, among other reasons. Oh, and he happened to be a Christian, although no one ever suggested he acted because he had seen any of the myriad Jesus cartoons or alleged "art". (Irony footnote: William Ayers is a "respected" College professor).

The real irony comes in the form of threats King has received leading up to the hearings, titled "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response." The NAACP has weighed in attempting to halt the hearings, and 56 Democratic lawmakers have joined the chorus, claiming that "it would jeopardize trust between U.S. Muslims and law enforcement officials." And Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf says that the hearings will cause more radicalization.

So the opponents are crying foul over the hearings, which are designed to figure out why American Muslims become radicalized or why they don't come forward to condemn the radicals or help law enforcement, by claiming that the attempts at discovery will only cause more.

4 comments:

Woody,Great post. This issue really,really bugs me. I wrote about this 2 days ago and wondered why the SPLC and the ACLU would not want to join King in the hearings. After all they both go after extremists groups through out the country. They both go after those who would use fear to suppress freedom. Their politically correct stance only gives into their supposed fear that it will increase the problem. If that is true then everything they do must be based on that assumption. It's all hogwash! Or perhaps whitewash?

"One of the reasons for the hearings is Chairman Peter King's disappointment in the lack of protests by "ordinary" American Muslims in the face of attacks waged in their name, and still we're being cautioned that to try to figure out why may cause more attacks."

I hadn't quite thought about the issue in these terms, but you do a good job of simplifying the issue. This is almost like another Global Climate Change debate in which no matter what happens, it's taken as proof that we need to do (or continue doing, as the case may be) whatever the Left wants.